Featured Posts

I'll apologize now if what I'm about to say offends you. Probably not the best way to start a post, I realize, but there it is.I waded into some particularly dangerous waters last week, and I guess I am again now. It was against my better judgement to dive in, but in the end I came to the inevitable realization that I was never one to censor myself. A friend once told me that not censoring yourself is fine, but it's really all about timing, and that's something I still probably haven't learned. Or maybe I have. Maybe last week was the perfect time... but I could analyse that to death, and have, but for brevity sake let me get to the point.FHRITP - Fuck Her Right In The Pussy.There, I said it. I'm sure you're having some type of emotional response to that statement. It may have even come as a complete shock to you, to see those words being presented so boldly out of nowhere. In all likelihood though, images flashed in your mind of reporters, live on the scene of whatever story they were working hard trying to cover, being interrupted by nimwits yelling that phrase. Most people have heard the story by now, and have seen at least one example of the many that are out there on the interwebs.The conversation I waded into was the debate that surrounds this unfortunate behaviour from the aforementioned nimwits. What caught my attention was a very vocal element of society propagating a viewpoint that was becoming widely accepted: FHRITP is rape, or at the very least promotes it.It was this that I challenged.Okay, I fully admit that attempting to debate such big conversations on a platform such as Twitter is a horrible idea. I think everyone who uses Twitter probably knows this. Nonetheless, this is where my challenge took place - it normally does - and I did it because I think it needs to be challenged. I feel that applying something as horrible as the act of rape to this phrase, which absolutely does not suggest it, is not helpful in any way.Just read the phrase.Now read it again without your angry goggles on. Just read the words. Look past the perceived vulgarity in it, and just read what it says.It's not FHRITPWC - ...without consent.It's not FHRITPEISSN - ... even if she says no.It's not PHDAFHRITP - Pin her down and...It's not DHAFHRITP - Drug her and...It's not ... I'll stop. You get the point I hope. That phrase in no way suggests rape, and those who continue to propagate that horrible accusation onto these individuals need to be challenged... in my opinion.Is it sexual harassment, though? I don't know. What I do know is that the accusations that fly shouldn't be focused on men solely. There should not be this vocal hatred focused on the male half of the population, and their inability to control themselves, or whatever other bullshit - as I believe - surrounds the conversation. IF - and that's an all caps if - this is sexual harassment, then it should solely be applied to the individual in question, and not a gender in totality. Why? Because men have yelled the childish phrase to male reporters as well. And you know what? Women have yelled it to both male and female reporters too. It's a fact. I just like to point these things out to those who try to focus this childish prank into something much worse then what it actually is. I do this because I think it's not right to shift the focus this way, and moreso, I think it's unfair.In my mind - call me naive, or caught in a mans bubble, all you want - FHRITP is a childish prank where individuals get their jollies out of using censored words on live TV. Yeah, it might be an extremely simple view of this situation, but that's exactly what I think it is. That's what I think it clearly is, in fact.Do I condone this behaviour, you may ask? NO. Should people stop choosing to partake in this stupid prank? YES. I can not be any more succinct than that.I wont even get into the conversations that followed, and how this whole conversation expanded to be people being fired, and calls for fines for the behaving like this. I just don't have the energy to tackle that mess right now. This one really took the good out of me, and I feel a lot of people viewed me as a misogynist that day, just for sharing this opinion I have. Nobody came out and directly said it, but boy did I get the feeling from the contentious tone of the tweets I was receiving. Of course, my tone is often misunderstood on the old twit box as well, so perhaps my perception was wrong. I actually hate that I feel the need - whether actually necessary or not - to defend myself, to declare that I'm not a misogynist. But simply put, as an individualist, misogyny just doesn't jive.Some conversations really do drain me, however - the ones I know better to get involved in basically - and this one definitely was one of them. I'm sure any of you who share your opinions widely as well, have had those days of mental exhaustion. Sharing an opinion sometimes can take the good out of you - not to say my opinions should not also be challenged. That's the source of the exhaustion - and I was pretty beaten down by this one I must admit.The next morning, however, I was shaken out of it by - stick with me here - Penn Jillette. As if the almighty internet knew I was blue, I just happened to come across this Penn quote. It was perfect. I have to be true to myself, and part of me is sharing my opinion. It's jumping in those troubled waters to see what calm can be found. It's challenging things that I feel the need to be challenged. None of this comes from hate though, and none of it from anger, nor any other dark side influence.It's just a joy of being alive.
Visit my blog directly: http://eliharris.blogspot.com

I could have written the plot to what's unfolding in Canada at the moment a month ago. Some parts of me wishes I did post these thoughts back then... but better late than never, I guess. Let me back up to the point this was all heavily on my mind, and get these thoughts out there now.I was visiting a good friend not long ago when his partner, who was also there having a gab with us, asked him what was up with all the news about possible threats to Canadians. My friend fairly quickly directed the question at me, knowing I'd likely have something to say about the topic - he knows me well - and of course I did. I'm not sure if I ranted or not, but I did express some clear thoughts that evening about what was happening, and what I thought could possibly happen in the near future. Before jumping into geo-political analysis, I immediately suggested to her to not let herself live in fear, at all, ever. I was actually taken aback when she mentioned that a lot of her acquaintances were worried about these threats. I hadn't up to that point realized how strong the fear campaign was, not really being affected by such tactics. Not that she was overly worried herself, but I did want to try and calm any part of her mind that was fearful, being a huge believer that we never should live in fear, as nothing good can ever come from it. It wasn't long after that suggestion that I turned to the topic at hand, and asked her to consider the fact that our government was just about to wage war in Iraq or Syria - SyrIraq - joining the coalition forces that were being gathered to fight the threat that known as ISIS, or ISIL, or IS - those evil bastards on the other side of the planet. This was before there was really any discussion in our parliament, but I knew it was coming from the rhetoric I was reading from officials. Sure enough, before the week was through, the debate began... which of course really didn't matter. Though it was nice to hear the opposition's views on this new war, as soon as it was announced it was clear we were indeed going to go. The majority government solidifies it before any challenge to joining this new war could have been made. So, what did this have to do with the threats we were hearing about? Well, I know how propaganda works, and I know that if I wanted to sell an idea, fear is a strong motivator to do just that. I asked her to just consider the possibly that the threats which we were being told about was information being spread, massively highlighted if nothing else, by the very people who wanted to join the war, in effort to sell our need to join it. I just wanted her to consider that possibility.I switched gears at this moment, saying "Not to say we will not be attacked. In fact, I think it's a real possibility"... On October 22nd, a lone gunmen shot a soldier standing on ceremonial guard at the national war monument in Ottawa, before storming the parliament building and firing shots in there as well. Nobody was hurt during that later incident, but it was a dramatic scene of gunfire, eventually ended by Sargent at Arms Kevin Vickers. The very second this happened, I knew exactly what was to follow; it was going to be blamed on ISIS, giving reason to not only expand the war beyond the air involvement we've already dedicated, but also to give excessive powers to police and surveillance infrastructure here in Canada. The expansion of the war has not yet come, but attack on our civil liberties is very much in the forefront. This horrific act of violence in our capital was indeed nearly immediately blamed on Muslim radicals, and the following days saw much promotion of new powers being fast tracked for our law enforcement agencies; terror bills which would drastically expand police powers, including preventative detentions; and online surveillance and anti free speech bills. This is surely just the start, and again due to a majority government, there is very little we're going to be able to do to stop it... and this concerns me more than any extremist, or lone mentally unstable individual, can. The fact of the matter is this: even if this attack was a man radicalized by IS**, then we have to realize we had it coming. I put full blame on Stephen Harper for creating an enemy by joining 'coalition forces' in not only this recent foray into attack missions in Iraq and Syria, but also for hopping onto the incredibly destructive war on terror train we've seen rapidly evolve over the past 13 years or so.Blowback is a bitch. If I were to dive into the world of alternative media, as I often do in effort to gather as much information as I possibly can, I'm sure they are picking apart this moment to figure out if this event was a false flag - a generated event, used to further an already desired agenda. They will look for similarities to other suspected events; things like war games taking place which are eerily similar to events that eventually unfold; things like multiple suspects that eventually turn out to be nonexistent; things like false information being presented by officials; any strange connections overall. They will pick apart every single detail of this event to determine if this obviously unstable man was not pushed by ISIS to carry this attack out, but instead by our own intelligence agencies... Then again, groups like ISIS were funded, armed, and trained in some cases by western democracies anyway... but that's a post for another time. Regardless of which angle you wish to tackle this event on, Canada's future remains the same. In my mind, this is one individual who made some horrible choices in life, and obviously suffered from some sort of mental illness. The event is no doubt being used for political gain, however, and I saw this coming during that conversation that one random night. I wish many more could have prepared themselves for what eventually has come. Maybe then we'd have a chance to stop this fast moving train towards a world I do not want to be a part of. It truly breaks my heart that Canadians are gong to fall for this same tired terror plot, like so many others have. But as broken-hearted as I am at the moment, I refuse to give up. I will not live in fear, and I will not let my liberties be stolen from me out of fear. I can only hope many more of my fellow citizens feel the same way.'True north STRONG' yes absolutely, but let's not forget 'and FREE'!
Visit my blog directly: http://eliharris.blogspot.com

I consider myself an environmentalist. I don't know what that means for anyone else, if anything, but for me it means I feel a deep connection with the planet, and more-so, a responsibly to protect it as best I can. I'm sure this side of me was developed from being born and raised in an isolated community in the middle of Labrador, or the fact that I was a Boy Scout until I was nearly 17 years old, which I'm sure also helped lead me in this direction. Regardless of where this side of me came from, it carried on into my later life, remaining with me today.In 2006, I felt so strongly about ensuring our natural environment was remembered and protected as much as possible, that I ran as a Green Party of Canada candidate for the federal election in January of that year. Needless to say I didn't get elected, but I was one of 308 candidates, a full slate of environmentally conscious individuals standing up for what they believe in on a political stage. None of us were elected that year, but the leader of the party, Elizabeth May, did manage to win a seat in the following election, one in which I did not run as a candidate. In fact, I've since parted ways from that party totally due to some major differences in our outlooks and solutions...But all that was just a primer really, as I attempt to sort out my thoughts on the topic at hand; Climate Change. I bring this up now because there is massive worldwide action taking place today, and I've not been able to stop thinking about the topic for days now. It really began when I went to watch a documentary/call to action a few days ago, called 'Disruption', which was followed by a general discussion between those who participated. I was left with many emotions, and the wild debate within flared ferociously again.At this point, let me be clear: I have no doubt that climate change is happening. That's obvious. I just question, for the sake of thoroughness if nothing else, whether we're missing something. I've honestly not totally accepted the fact that it's human activity, carbon emissions precisely, and solely that, that is causing our climate to change. I am in no way saying that carbon emissions are wonderful, or that they should not be immediately reduced as much as possible; of course I want that. I just do not want it because I fear the earth is in implosion mode, about to wipe humanity off the face of it. In fact, the fear-mongering I hear from the climate change movement is a personal turn off. I realize that fear is motivator, but I despise it's use as a manipulative tool, whether it's for something as good as making our environment cleaner or not.More-so however, I worry that if we put all our focus on one possibility, we may choose incorrectly and fail in preparing for all possibilities. What if it's the combination of the carbon, and say the increased solar activity we've seen over the 20th century? What if it's the pole shift that is happening, constantly, that's aiding in the ice cap shift - the melting of the Arctic, and the growing of the Antarctic - or simply causing climate change altogether? What if it's countless other possibilities from the realities yet known from the vast universe we exist within? What if it's something we've missed totally and we, as an entire planet, go down one solo path to some promised land of rainbows and butterflies, by only forcing a full stop to emitting massive amounts of carbon. What if...?As I've debated this topic with myself for years now, one thing I've always done - like many things I debate within - is 'follow the money'. We've reached a point in the climate movement where real possibilities of change exist. There is no doubt many important, well-connected, people who are aware of this, and have been before the majority of the public were perhaps. I remember how the public reacted to me in 2006, just with minor discussions on environmental issues, but things are vastly different now, as more and more hop into the climate change chat - once called global warming, by the way. Regardless, those who know change is coming, have invested in that change, and anyone invested will surely push for that change to happen no matter what.Here's where my main concern comes into play; incentive. Who has the most incentive to push the 'climate change agenda'?At this point, the solutions I hear most revolve around government solutions: I hear much talk about nationalized energy resources; I constantly hear about full subsidization of green technology; and we know all about the carbon taxes proposed already. Basically, all I hear are demands for government to grow considerably as a means to take care of this potentially massive issue - whether we can fix it ourselves or not. So, I ask myself; who has incentive? People who want government to grow even more first and foremost, and people invested in green or clean technology second - I'm sure there are others. It will be very difficult, damn near impossible, to change these peoples minds, even when you find countering information to their claims. To me, it is these very people who would use manipulative tools like fear-mongering, in fact, as they have full incentive to push this agenda. And it is these people I cannot ignore as I debate this issue in my head.At this point, you're probably asking what then is my solution. Well, it's a good question, and for me, it starts with the individual. Everyone's choices matter when we're dealing with the environment, from the products you choose, to the activities you do, to anything in between and beyond. Nearly 7 billion people making better choices would do a lot for this world.For me personally, I've made the choice to:- consume conservatively, and respectfully recycle.- buy locally as much as possible.- not have a car (until I buy an electric one).- use my voice to denounce the oil wars. I speak out against all wars in fact, not only for the needless murder, but also for the massive amount of energy wasted, and environment destroyed.- purchase and promote more environmentally friendly products, like green or clean technology. Also, though I do not support subsidization, I do support individuals choosing green technology. In fact, if it weren't for the massive subsidization of Big Oil, we would be in much better shape right now.- promote alternate ways to protect the environment, via a different role of government, that being one which fully protects property rights, which would extend to air and water. This would give individuals, and groups of individuals, far more power to protect themselves from other people, industries, and even government harm, and also add more incentive for everyone to act better.There is definitely much more I could be doing, and I'm sure there will be as life continues, but I feel that as an individual I'm doing something. I think that if we all made similar, or even better, choices, we'd be that much closer to protecting our planet. In the jungle, the strong survive. Economics is much the same. If we all made the right choices, the weak - old, tired, dirty, destructive companies, for example - will die. I understand we're a long way from inspiring that type of shift, and I in no way suggest the climate change movement stop what they are doing, but I feel the need to keep reminding my peers that forcing the world to change, and growing government even more, is not a requirement to saving the planet. Individuals choosing to change is.Nobody has really said this better than Gandhi: 'Be the change that you wish to see in the world.'
Visit my blog directly: http://eliharris.blogspot.com